Thursday, June 25, 2009

OLD MAN RIVER




I grew up in St. Louis and the surrounding area, never too far from the Mississippi River. The character of the city, the small towns, the farms and, most of all, the people, of the mid-section of the country, have been shaped, for both good and ill, by the mighty river.


On the good side, St. Louis owes its life and much of its prosperity to the fact that it is located on a major artery of transport. As for ill, The Old Man at floodtide can, in a single day, wipe out a small town’s entire business section or rob a farm family of a year’s livelihood. Yet, for all its destructive force, I don’t know anyone who has grown up within the reach of the Mississippi who doesn’t love it–an affection that baffles many visitors, especially those who grew up near other rivers. They think water should be clear, sparkling and transparent. The Mississippi is nothing like that. There’s good reason it’s called Big Muddy. Looking into its dark, impenetrable depths, you see a living entity, pulsing with power and energy. To live near the Mississippi is to know that Nature is in charge.


What does this have to do with writing? Everything. As people are influenced by their surroundings, so stories and the characters who inhabit them, are shaped by their settings. In every book I can think of that I truly love, setting is as much a character as any of the people. In a sense, setting is the mother, the influence that molds the other characters. Imagine Tom Sawyer without the presence of the great river. If ever there was a character in tune with his setting, it’s Tom. On the other hand, some characters are trapped by their setting. Think of Anna Karenina, locked in a life she feels is a sham. How did these wonderful characters come to be? To what extent were they shaped by the surroundings in which their creators lived? A great deal, I believe.


What if Samuel Clemens had been born in Russia in 1828? He couldn’t have created Tom Sawyer. Would have he have written wonderful books? Probably. He may even have adopted a colorful pseudonym, but it certainly wouldn’t be Mark Twain. What if Leo Tolstoi had been born in Missouri in 1835? He, too, would probably have written memorable books, but we wouldn’t have Anna Karenina. What a loss! It’s impossible to know what would have happened if any of our distinguished writers had been born into a different environment. I think it’s safe to assume they would still be writers, but, having been influenced by different stimuli, they would be different writers. Surely Scott Fitzgerald’s fascination with wealth and his underlying distrust of it, were influenced by his midwestern sensibilities.


It seems to me that a writer’s first challenge is to capture the details of life in a particular time and place, and to show how they shape the lives of its people. The second, more important, challenge is to delve below the surface of those lives to show the how alike we all are, despite our apparent differences. That, I believe, is the hallmark of those books we call classics, the ones we are moved to read again and again.

14 comments:

Debby Mayne said...

I agree with you, Sandy! All the books I remember and love are set in places that the author was able to bring to life.

Anonymous said...

Sandy,
Love your insights into the "Big Muddy" -- and I truly believe setting is everything for a good story! The backdrop almost becomes another character, one we always remember.
Marielena

Sandy Cody said...

Thanks for your comments, Debby and Marielena. Another amazing (at least to me) thing about setting is how two different writers can take the same setting and make of it completely different things.

Tessa McDermid said...

Thanks, Sandy, for your interesting insight into setting. I've always found that important in my writing and I know it's because it was so important in the books that I read. When we moved to Kansas for school reasons, I more closely identified with all the women who lived on the prairie in Willa Cather's books. And there are so many places I'd love to visit - all because a writer brought the setting to life.

Kathye Quick said...

I agree. Look around. There are tons of seetings right in front of us. Our settings really are what make out characters unique. Each character has a personality and back story based on where you set his or her story.

Elisabeth Rose said...

That massive river has inspired lots of books and songs. Probably because it's so big and so much life has been and still is, played out on it and along its banks. The name itself is very evocative

Sandy Cody said...

I couldn't agree more! I think setting is especially important in our Avalon books because they, at their heart, are about people's emotional lives

Keith Shaw said...

I enjoyed your thoughts about the importance of setting to characters and the writers who write them. It got me thinking about stories where the setting is a character.

In stories like Jack London's "To Build a Fire" and A Perfect Storm the setting is the antagonist, and often the winner of the struggle. In Twain's Life on the Mississippi the river is a living character that is ever-changing and dangerous.

Can anyone think of a story where the setting is a benevolent character?

Sandy Cody said...

Great question, Keith. I can't think of anything off the top of my head. The question will probably be stuck in my brain all day now - like the song you can't forget.

If I think of something, I'll get back.

I.J. Parnham said...

I'm don't do much in the way of deep analysis of stories but I tend to think Fantasy genre books often present the landscape as being either antagonists or benevolent. The land will govern who turns out to be the good guys depending on which side of the Mountain of Doom they live.

Often the invented world mirrors the mindset or physical health of the hero. Thomas Covenant is perhaps a good example of this. More recently Scott Lynch's cityscapes create a perfect environment for Locke Lamora to flourish. And bringing if back to the Big Muddy, in the great fantasy author George RR Martin's historical horror steamboat tale Fevre Dream I'd say the environment again that helped the characters.

Beate Boeker said...

Loved that post, Sandy! How about the "Anne" series by L.M. Montgomery as an example for a positive environment? All books are located on P.E. Island in Canada, and it's described in a way that makes you long to go there NOW.Anne, an orphan, delights in the beauty around her and enjoys every minute. The book wouldn't be the same without the setting.

Sandy Cody said...

Thanks, Ian and Beate, for sharing those insights. I have to admit I'm not very well-read in the fantasy genre, but what Ian says has a ring of truth to it. As for the Anne books, Beate, you are dead on.

Elisabeth Rose said...

The Hobbits home The Shire is a loving welcoming setting to the point the characters actually live in the earth--embraced by it. Very maternal imagery there.

Of course the contrast with the other lands is vast and deliberate. Even the forests of Rivendell where the friendly elves live is unsettling. As the hobbits get further from home the setting becomes more and more threatening.

All through Lord of The Rings the setting is a living character. I'd never thought about it before!

In Show Boat, I think from memory( I read it years ago), the river is portrayed as benign--a father figure almost. It's their home, the source of their livelihood and the charcters love it.

Sandy Cody said...

You're right, Lis. the setting is a character in the Tolkien books. And, as Ilse said on the Avaloners list, Thomas Hardy definitely treated setting as a character.